IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucm/doicae/1820.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the importance of the choice threshold in quantifying market risk under the POT method (EVT)

Author

Listed:
  • Sonia Benito Muela

    (Department of Economic Analysis Faculty of Economics and Business Administration National Distance Education University (UNED). Author-Name: Carmen López-Martín
    Department of Business and Accounting Faculty of Economics and Business Administration National Distance Education University (UNED).)

  • Mª Ángeles Navarro

    (PhD. Student of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration National Distance Education University (UNED).)

Abstract

The conditional extreme value theory has been proven to be one of the most successful in estimating market risk. The implementation of this method in the framework of the Peaks Over Threshold (POT) model requires one to choose a threshold for fitting the generalized Pareto distribution (GPD). In this paper, we investigate whether the selection of the threshold is important for the quantification of market risk. For measuring risk, we use the value at risk (VaR) measure and the expected shortfall (ES) measure. The study has been done for a large set of assets. The results obtained indicate that the quantification of the market risk through the VaR and ES measures does not depend on the threshold selected. This result is also found in a smaller sample.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonia Benito Muela & Mª Ángeles Navarro, 2018. "Assessing the importance of the choice threshold in quantifying market risk under the POT method (EVT)," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2018-20, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucm:doicae:1820
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/49146/1/1820.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loretan, Mico & Phillips, Peter C. B., 1994. "Testing the covariance stationarity of heavy-tailed time series: An overview of the theory with applications to several financial datasets," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 211-248, January.
    2. Wong, Woon K., 2010. "Backtesting value-at-risk based on tail losses," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 526-538, June.
    3. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    4. Paul H. Kupiec, 1995. "Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    5. Christoffersen, Peter, 2011. "Elements of Financial Risk Management," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 2, number 9780123744487.
    6. Bekiros, Stelios D. & Georgoutsos, Dimitris A., 2005. "Estimation of Value-at-Risk by extreme value and conventional methods: a comparative evaluation of their predictive performance," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 209-228, July.
    7. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Ceretta, Paulo Sergio, 2015. "A comparison of Expected Shortfall estimation models," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 14-47.
    8. Paul Embrechts & Sidney Resnick & Gennady Samorodnitsky, 1999. "Extreme Value Theory as a Risk Management Tool," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 30-41.
    9. McNeil, Alexander J. & Frey, Rudiger, 2000. "Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(3-4), pages 271-300, November.
    10. Robert F. Engle & Simone Manganelli, 2004. "CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value at Risk by Regression Quantiles," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 367-381, October.
    11. Christoffersen, Peter F, 1998. "Evaluating Interval Forecasts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 841-862, November.
    12. Ada Ho & Alan Wan, 2002. "Testing for covariance stationarity of stock returns in the presence of structural breaks: an intervention analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(7), pages 441-447.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sonia Benito & Carmen López-Martín & Mª Ángeles Navarro, 2023. "Assessing the importance of the choice threshold in quantifying market risk under the POT approach (EVT)," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(1), pages 1-31, March.
    2. Lazar, Emese & Zhang, Ning, 2019. "Model risk of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 74-93.
    3. James Ming Chen, 2018. "On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Benjamin R. Auer & Benjamin Mögel, 2016. "How Accurate are Modern Value-at-Risk Estimators Derived from Extreme Value Theory?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6288, CESifo.
    5. Sander Barendse & Erik Kole & Dick van Dijk, 2023. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in the Presence of Estimation Error," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 528-568.
    6. David Happersberger & Harald Lohre & Ingmar Nolte, 2020. "Estimating portfolio risk for tail risk protection strategies," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 26(4), pages 1107-1146, September.
    7. Benjamin Mögel & Benjamin R. Auer, 2018. "How accurate are modern Value-at-Risk estimators derived from extreme value theory?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 979-1030, May.
    8. Abdul-Aziz Ibn Musah & Jianguo Du & Hira Salah Ud din Khan & Alhassan Alolo Abdul-Rasheed Akeji, 2018. "The Asymptotic Decision Scenarios of an Emerging Stock Exchange Market: Extreme Value Theory and Artificial Neural Network," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-24, November.
    9. Komunjer, Ivana, 2013. "Quantile Prediction," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 961-994, Elsevier.
    10. Marco Rocco, 2011. "Extreme value theory for finance: a survey," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 99, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    11. Gaglianone, Wagner Piazza & Lima, Luiz Renato & Linton, Oliver & Smith, Daniel R., 2011. "Evaluating Value-at-Risk Models via Quantile Regression," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 29(1), pages 150-160.
    12. Stelios Bekiros & Nikolaos Loukeris & Iordanis Eleftheriadis & Christos Avdoulas, 2019. "Tail-Related Risk Measurement and Forecasting in Equity Markets," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 783-816, February.
    13. Timo Dimitriadis & Xiaochun Liu & Julie Schnaitmann, 2020. "Encompassing Tests for Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Multi-Step Forecasts based on Inference on the Boundary," Papers 2009.07341, arXiv.org.
    14. Chao Wang & Richard Gerlach, 2019. "Semi-parametric Realized Nonlinear Conditional Autoregressive Expectile and Expected Shortfall," Papers 1906.09961, arXiv.org.
    15. Marc Hallin & Carlos Trucíos, 2020. "Forecasting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in Large Portfolios: a General Dynamic Factor Approach," Working Papers ECARES 2020-50, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Marie Kratz & Yen H Lok & Alexander J Mcneil, 2016. "Multinomial var backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Working Papers hal-01424279, HAL.
    17. Jimenez-Martin, Juan-Angel & McAleer, Michael & Pérez-Amaral, Teodosio & Santos, Paulo Araújo, 2013. "GFC-robust risk management under the Basel Accord using extreme value methodologies," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 223-237.
    18. Krzysztof Echaust & Małgorzata Just, 2020. "Value at Risk Estimation Using the GARCH-EVT Approach with Optimal Tail Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    19. Antonio Díaz & Gonzalo García-Donato & Andrés Mora-Valencia, 2017. "Risk quantification in turmoil markets," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 202-224, August.
    20. Enrique Molina‐Muñoz & Andrés Mora‐Valencia & Javier Perote, 2021. "Backtesting expected shortfall for world stock index ETFs with extreme value theory and Gram–Charlier mixtures," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 4163-4189, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Extreme Value Theory; Peaks over Threshold; Value at Risk; Expected Shortfall; Generalized Pareto Distribution.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G19 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Other
    • G29 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucm:doicae:1820. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Águeda González Abad (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feucmes.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.